HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40527 of 2023 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sagir Ahmad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd Raghib Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.64 of 2023, under Sections 302, 34, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Murad Nagar, District-Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, two unknown persons are stated to have committed the murder of Doctor Md. Shamsad in his clinic on 11.02.2023 at about 10:30 PM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. FIR is delayed by about six hours and there is no explanation to the said delay caused. The applicant is not named in the FIR. It is further argued that prior to the said FIR three more documents were transcribed. First was the information given at the police station about the said murder which was an anonymous call received at the police station on 11.02.2023 at 11:05 PM. The second one was the G.D. entry regarding a call made by one Wasim Akram whereby it was mentioned that the said murder has been committed but the said information also did not mention the name of any accused person. Third one was the inquest Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd Raghib Ali, Hari Shankar Singh, Mohd. Ishraque Farooqui, Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay, Vivek Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shailendra Kumar Singh Mohd. Owaish .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) proceeding of the deceased person which was concluded on 12.02.2023 at about 02:40 AM and there is no whisper of the name of any of the accused person whatsoever. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that subsequent to the institution of FIR, and application was moved by the informant at the police station on 23.02.2023 which is delayed by about 11 days and he had nominated eight accused persons including the applicant to be the perpetrators of the crime. The said application given by the informant at the police station is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and cannot be taken into consideration. It is also argued that even the source of information received by the first informant is not mentioned in it, as such, it is a vague application. 7. Learned counsel has stated that the FIR, which was lodged on 23.02.2023, itself indicates that there were three witnesses, namely, Aman S/o Jakir Ali, Ali S/o of Jakir Ali and Uzer S/o Anis who are stated to have seen the incident but their statements have been recorded after a delay of about three months i.e. on 16.05.2023 and they have categorically stated that the persons visible in the newspaper, namely, the applicant and the co-accused persons were the persons identified by them. The said recording of statement that too belatedly after about three months after the incident speaks volume of false implication. It is further argued that the said CCTV footage in which the applicant is stated to have been identified have been demanded by the counsel for the applicant by moving an application during trial and the said copies have not been furnished to date, as such, trial is not moving ahead. Even no test identification parade as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act has been conducted, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.02.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial court concerned. As per the status report dated 06.09.2025 received from the trial court concerned, the said applications moved by the counsel for the accused BAIL No. 40527 of 2023 2 persons is still pending, as such, trial is not moving ahead. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that trial is at a stand still and no witness has been examined during trial coupled with the fact that applicant was not named in the FIR and his name surfaced after 11 days of the institution of FIR and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Mohd. Owaish, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 8, 2025 Karan BAIL No. 40527 of 2023 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad